Wednesday, December 11, 2013


We are pleased to present in three parts the study of the heresy of Modernism by the French Catholic journalist and intellectual, Arnaud de Lassus.  Due to the length of the piece we will be presenting it in three parts, the first of which follows below.  Having read de Lassus for over thirty years now, and having had the great pleasure of meeting him some years ago, we can say that his is one of the fine original minds that have brought tremendous clarity to the complex issues affecting the Catholic Church.

We are grateful, once again, to Anthony Fraser over at Apropos for providing the translation of the piece which originally appeared in his own publication in 2008.  For those who would like a printable copy in pdf form of the entire article rather than reading through it here simply visit the Apropos site and click on the link.

Behold how de Lassus exposes Modernism for what it really is.....

A CENTURY OF MODERNISM, Part One (of Three Parts)
by Arnaud de Lassus

[Part Two here.  Part Three here.]

(This article by Arnaud de Lassus first appeared in issue 193 of Action Familiale et Scolaire (1) of October 2007. Translation by ASF & MT. It appeared in Apropos No. 26, Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, 2008. It is now posted on the Apropos website: )

Introduction – Sources

1. Modernism in the era of St Pius X
• The general climate in the Church at the end of Leo XIII’s pontificate.
• The Modernist system.
• The Modernist frame of mind
• The philosophical bases of Modernism.
• Modernism in theology
• Modernist ways of arguing
• Modernist behaviour and methods
• St Pius X’s counter-attack

II. Neo-Modernism at the time of Pius XII
• The general climate in the Church in the years 1945-1958.
• How it weakened traditional circles.
• Neo-Modernist doctrines in the years 1945-1958
• The loss of the sense of truth
• Neo-Modernist behaviour and methods
• Pius XII’s counter-attack: the encyclical Humani generis

III. Neo-Modernism in the Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Epoch
• Reasons for the success of neo-Modernism
• The neo-Modernist frame of mind
• Neo-Modernist philosophical errors tied to those of Modernism
• Neo-Modernist ways of arguing
• Neo-Modernist behaviour and methods
• Neo-Modernism in 2007

IV Conclusion


Can we talk about the survival of Modernism in 2007? The Modernist error, which was widespread at the beginning of the 20th century, has it not now disappeared? That is certainly the current opinion on the subject.

And yet, the facts are not in accord with that opinion. As soon as one studies contemporary errors, one almost always discerns the Modernist roots of these making an appearance. Modernism, has pervaded, among others, the new exegesis(2), the new catechism(3), the new theology(4) (a system based on the non-gratuitous nature of the supernatural order) (5).

Another example illustrates the permanence of Modernism. In the Declaration Dominus Jesus of 6th August 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger states the following regarding some ‘relativist theories which seek to justify religious pluralism’:

‘The roots of these problems are to be found in certain presuppositions of both a philosophical and theological nature, which hinder the understanding and acceptance of the revealed truth. Some of these can be mentioned: the conviction of the elusiveness and inexpressibility of divine truth, even by Christian revelation; relativistic attitudes toward truth itself, according to which what is true for some would not be true for others; the radical opposition posited between the logical mentality of the West and the symbolic mentality of the East; the subjectivism which, by regarding reason as the only source of knowledge, becomes incapable of raising its “gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being”.’

The word modernism is not used. But the presuppositions indicated by the Cardinal constitute the characteristic elements of Modernism of the 1900s, those which were condemned by St Pius X.(6)

In these conditions the diagnosis of Modernism made thirty years ago by Jacques Maritain and Paul VI
remain fully valid today. In his book, Le paysan de la Garonne (The Peasant of the Garonne) published in 1966, Maritain spoke about:

‘The neo-Modernist fever, which was very contagious, at least in so-called “intellectual” circles, compared with which the Modernism of St Pius X’s time was only a mild hay-fever.’ (p.16).

In 1972, speaking about ‘the errors which can completely ruin the Christian conception of life and history’ Paul VI remarked:

‘Modernism was the characteristic expression of these errors, and it still exists today, under other names.’(7)

This system which is called Modernism and which encompasses a general frame of mind and a set of characteristic errors is therefore very much alive today, a century after it appeared in force in the Church.

We propose to describe it in outline by examining its different components (its frame of mind, ideas, method of argument, methods, resources) at three epochs in history:

• Modernism during the papacy of St Pius X (1903-1914)
• Neo-Modernism during the papacy Pius XII (1939-1958)
• Neo-Modernism of the conciliar and post-conciliar period.


The present analysis will only give a broad outline of the phenomenon studied. Below are the titles of some documents etc. which deal with this or that aspect of the subject in more depth. They are listed under the headings of the three epochs mentioned above – those of St Pius X, Pius XII and the conciliar & post-conciliar eras.

Modernism in the time of St Pius X (8)

The decree Lamentabili of St Pius X dated 3rd July 1907
 The encyclical Pascendi of St Pius X dated 8th September 1907
 The letter Notre charge apostolique of St Pius X on the Sillon dated 25th August 1910.
 Histoire du catholicisme libéral et du catholicisme social (History of liberal and social Catholicism) by Abbé E. Barbier (1924)

Modernism in the time of Pius XII

La Nouvelle théologie, où va-t-elle? An article by Fr Garrigou-Lagrange (1946) reproduced in the book La nouvelle théologie (The New Theology) mentioned below;
 The encyclical Humani generis of Pius XII dated 12th August 1950;
 La crise actuel du catholicisme français, by Jean Calbrette (1959) ;
 L’intégrisme, histoire d’une histoire by Jean Madiran (1964) ;
 Face au Modernisme, article by Louis Jugnet (1968)

Modernism in the conciliar and post-conciliar epoch

L’hérésie du XXe siècle by Jean Madiran (1968)
Réclamation au saint père, by Jean Madiran (1974)
Le concile en question by Jean Madiran ;
Éditoriaux et chroniques (156-1981) by Jean Madiran (1983-1985)
Gethsemane by Cardinal Siri (1981)
The Rhine flows into the Tiber by Ralph Wiltgen (1982);
Iota Unum by Romano Amerio (1987)
Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Mgr Lefebvre (1987)
Brève apologie pour l’église de toujours, by Fr Calmel (1987)
La nouvelle théologie by Courrier de Rome (1994)
Trouvera-t-il encore la foi sur terre, Claude Barthe (1996) (9)

Studies dealing with all three epochs:

Le modernisme hier et aujourd’hui by François Desjars – AFS (1989) ;
Cent ans de modernisme - Généalogie du concile Vatican II by Abbé Dominique Bourmaud (published by Clovis 2003) ;
Face au modernisme, article by Louis Jugnet (1968) ;
Des modernistes aujourd’hui, in issue No. 179 (Sep-Oct 2007) of Fideliter
Further material may also be found in reviews such as Pensées catholique, Itinéraires, Courrier de Rome, Fideliter, Sel de la terre, [The Angelus, Approaches, Apropos, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, Christian Order]


General Climate in the Church at the end of Leo XIII’s pontificate

In 1903, Leo XIII died. He was Pope for 25 years. His pontificate had been marked by an amazing contrast between:

• Very firm teaching, recalling and reinforcing the previous condemnation of the Church’s Magisterium on Liberalism;
• A government which pushed very far for conciliation with liberal political powers and which was opposed frequently by those who took seriously his teaching on Liberalism.(10)

From whence arose the situation in the Church characterised by Louis Jugnet:

‘Everyone, today, knows at that time, despite the wholesome and profound doctrine so magnificently illustrated by Leo XIII, the end of his pontificate was marked by the growth of false ideas in the Church, in Germany, in France, in England and in Italy. One has only to read the memoirs of Loisy(11) to see how philosophy, theology, history, exegesis, ecclesiastical discipline and socio-political thought were pervaded by the errors then in fashion. But thanks to Loisy who was named with the delightful euphemism “a strong force of opinion and truth” by very influential pressure groups (St Pius X will speak later of “clandestinum foedus”, clandestine association) having their ramifications throughout the seminaries, the Catholic faculties, the episcopate, and in certain curial circles, it had been nigh impossible to obtain the least useful measure from the Roman Magisterium.’(12)

The Modernist System

We call Modernism the set of errors to which Louis Jugnet alluded and also the movement (one could say the apparatus) which supports them.

The errors touch upon several aspects of the Church’s life and appear disparate; but they are united by logical ties and common principles and by this fact constitute a system (a word used in the encyclical Pascendi §5) (13).

At the beginning of his pontificate, Saint Pius X methodically attacked Modernism and managed to set it in decline through effective measures of a doctrinal and disciplinary nature.(14)

In the outline of the Modernist phenomenon which we give later we will distinguish between the Modernist frame of mind, doctrines, methods of argument, and methods. We will refer ourselves above all to two documents of St Pius X: the decree Lamentabili (3rd July 1907) and the encyclical Pascendi (8th September 1907).

The Modernist Frame of Mind

The Modernist is characterised by the concern to be modern, in other words by the love of novelties in every domain, even in those where novelty has no raison d’être.

From this we find the Modernist frame of mind characterised thus by Louis Jugnet:

‘An aggressive scorn for the past and tradition, a blind and irrational adoration of the future, a belief in inevitable and continual progress.’(15)

All this translates itself into a systematic desire for change; nothing can be stable, nothing can be immutable in the Church. (cf. Pascendi §38).

‘For the Modernist, writes Fr Calmel, as the name suggests, religion is essentially modern. It is not dominated by time; it is immersed wholly in the adventures of humanity on the move. There is no revelation, given once and for all, teaching the divine mysteries. There is no sacrifice having merited grace once for all. There is no new and eternal testament. But there is an indefinite evolution. It is in this sense that religion is called modern.’ (16)

The love of novelties, the canonisation of change, indefinite evolution -- it is such a state of mind that one finds throughout the history of the Modernist phenomenon. (17)

Philosophical Bases of Modernism

In an article comparing the Modernism of St Pius X’s time with the Neo-Modernism of St Pius XII’s time, Louis Jugnet(18) writes:

‘If Modernism is rightly a religious error, and even “the synthesis of all heresies” as it was called by St Pius X in “Pascendi”, its tap root is in philosophy: the “falsa philosophia” (false philosophy) – such is the poisoned origin from which all ensues.’(19)

A false philosophy principally comprising two errors, bearing scholarly names but simple to define: agnosticism and “vital immanence” or immanentism.


An error according to which human reason is confined within the field of phenomena and finds itself incapable of grasping the intelligible in the perceptible.

‘According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear; it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits.’ (Pascendi §6)


By virtue of their agnosticism, Modernists:

• Depreciate the realistic impulse of intelligence;
• Systematically depreciate intellectual knowledge
• Arrive at ruining the notion of truth
They thus display evidence of radical Nominalism (20) (Nominalism is a theory according to which ideas
are only the arbitrary production of the mind without any relationship to reality)

‘“Blind” they are, and “leaders of the blind”, puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth.’ (Pascendi §13)

Analogy with Protestantism

Even before the Modernists, Luther had proved himself a radical Nominalist. This explains the relationship between Protestantism and Modernism (21), a movement which St Pius X remarked – would develop the Christian world in the same direction:

‘These reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next.’ (Pascendi §39)

Immanentism (or vital immanence)

The Latin word immanens means “remaining at the interior of”. (22)

Jolivet’s vocabulary of philosophy defines Immanentism (or theories of immanence) thus:

‘Doctrines professing that all of a moral and religious order must explain itself adequately as a spontaneous product of the human conscience.’

Speaking of this characteristic of Modernism, Cardinal Mercier presented it in a formula which should be learnt by heart ( just as we find in applications around us).

The heart of Modernism is really this: that the religious soul draws the object and motive of its own faith from within itself, and not from outside.(23)

St Pius X saw in Immanentism, the engine of Modernist doctrines, as the positive side of the Modernist system (the negative side being agnosticism).


The faith resides in a certain private sentiment created by a need for the divine.

This sentiment is a revelation, or at the very least a beginning of revelation.

From this arises the equating of religious consciousness and revelation.

From this arises the law which erects religious consciousness as a universal rule.

Here are some passages from Pascendi where these points are developed.

‘Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense originating in a need of the divine.’ (Pascendi §7)

‘Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation, (…)

Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? (…)

From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.’ (Pascendi §8)

Analogy with Protestantism

We find here again striking analogies with Protestantism (the issue of private interpretation), as well as the theories of Kant and Rousseau (who make conscience the supreme criterion of morality)24 and with what is taught in our modern [French] catechetical courses.

From vital immanence to pantheism

This path has been described thus in Pascendi:

The philosopher has declared: “The principle of faith is immanent”; the believer has added: “This principle is God”; and the theologian draws the conclusion: “God is immanent in man”. Thus we have theological immanence.’ (Pascendi §19)

The encyclical Pascendi (Pascendi §19) distinguishes the three meanings of the word immanence in the Modernists’ thinking:

1. God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is irreproachable.
2. The divine action is one with the action of nature… and this would destroy the supernatural order. (25)
3. God is confused with his creature: i.e. pantheism.

Modernism in Theology

There are two theological consequences which can be seen coming from the philosophical error of vital immanence:

• The tendency towards pantheism
• The confusion of the natural with the supernatural

The encyclical Pascendi insists on this in the chapter on the Modernist apologist (26):

‘There are Catholics who, while rejecting immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a method of apologetics, and who do this so imprudently that they seem to admit, not merely a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural, such as has at all times been emphasised, within due limits, by Catholic apologists, but that there is in human nature a true and rigorous need for the supernatural order.’ (Pascendi §37).

If the supernatural is required by nature, it becomes natural…. The confusion of the supernatural/natural is the basis of what today we call the new theology the principal protagonist of which was Fr (later Cardinal) de Lubac. (27)

Modernism is a vehicle of even more theological errors. We present below some Modernist definitions which constitute so many errors:

Faith    Perception of immanent God
Dogma    Reflection of intelligence on the immanent God
Sacraments    Respond to the need to give religion a “visible body”.
Scripture    A collection of experiences made by believers.
The Church    A response to man’s social needs, it is the fruit of the collective conscience.
Ecclesiastical authority    A vital product of the Church, derived from the community of the faithful.
Church and State    Strangers one to the other by virtue of their different ends: hence separation

Modernist ways of arguing

• Avoiding all methodical exposition of doctrine

‘It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are fixed and steadfast.’ (Pascendi §4)

To mix errors and truth

‘This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully.’ (Pascendi §18).

Modernist methods and behaviour

• To act within the bosom of the Church

With Modernism we are in the presence:

‘Of a revolution the aim of which, avowed or not, is to substitute Man for God, in making Man the measure of all things, and which for the first time in the history of the Church is taking place in the bosom of the Church itself.’ (28)

This confirms the judgement made by Abbé Dominique Bourmaud:

‘Modernism is not only a heresy or an apostasy, it is a fifth column.’ (29)

• To arrange an efficient resource exercising action under many forms

‘What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried, in act, speech and writing.’ (Pascendi §43)

• To act like a secret society

Pascendi speaks about a ‘band of Modernists’ (Pascendi §42). The Motu proprio of 1st November 1910 is more explicit:

‘The Modernists, even after the encyclical Pascendi had removed the mask they used to cover themselves, have not abandoned their designs to trouble the Church’s peace. They have not ceased, indeed, to seek out new adepts and to group them in a secret association.’

‘A band of Modernists’, ‘A secret association of Modernists’ (‘clandestinum foedus’): These expressions indicate what Jean Madiran would later call the ‘secret society of Modernists’: (30) an association of restricted circles, infiltrating Modernism everywhere and who are more or less hidden; the degree of concealment depending on the measure of opposition they meet in high places.

Saint Pius X’s counter-attack

 Faced with this hydra-headed error and with its apparatus, the first measure taken under the pontificate of St Pius X was to put the principal works of the French Modernist leaders on the Index (A. Loisy. A Houtin, L. Laberthonnière, Ed. Le Roy).

In 1907 more general measures were taken to complete this action:

− the decree Lamentabili of 3-4th July 1907;
− the encyclical Pascendi of 8th September 1907

The Sillon movement which was a form of Catholic Liberalism pervaded with Modernist philosophy was the subject of the Pope’s letter Notre charge apostolique of 25th August 1910. (31)

On the 1st September 1910, the Anti-Modernist Oath was published which every candidate for ordination had to take, an oath which remained obligatory until the end of the Second Vatican Council.

At the time of St Pius X’s death, in 1914, these different measures had begun to bear fruit; the Modernist network, seriously and efficiently fought by the Roman authorities and numerous bishops, was constrained to hide itself and to behave like an underground current ready to come to the surface at an opportune moment.

Regarding St Pius X’s action, Cardinal Mercier passed the following judgement in 1915:

If, at the birth of Luther and Calvin, the Church had possessed Pontiffs of the temper of Pius X, would the Reformation have detached from Rome a third of Christian Europe? Pius X…has saved Christendom from the immense peril of Modernism, that is to say not one heresy, but all the heresies at one time. (32)

We have stressed the Modernism of St Pius X’s era, because it constitutes the first form of a system of ideas and methods which will reappear after the 1914-18 war to triumph today.


[Go to Part Two here]
[Go to Part Three here]


1 Action Familiale et Scolaire, 31 rue Rennequin, 75017 Paris, France €61 Ordinary Subscription, €69 Airmail.

2 Cf. the study by Msgr. Spadafora “The triumph of modernism over Catholic Exegesis” which appeared in issues 156-165 (1995) of Courrier de Rome, BP. 156, 78001, Versailles Cedex, and the dossier by Louis Millet, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” which appears in this issue of Apropos.

3 Cf. The Action Familiale et Scolaire brochure La catéchèse française d’après ses documents, (French Catechesis according to its documentation) supplement to AFS No. 151 October 2000.

4 Cf. the book, La nouvelle théologie, (The New Theology) published by Courrier de Rome.

5 Which leads to confusing the natural order with the supernatural order.

6 By the decree Lamentabili of 3rd July 1907 and by the encyclical Pascendi of 8th September 1907.

7 Pope Paul VI, General Audience January 19th, 1972, quotation taken from The Teachings of Pope Paul VI. Vol. 5. 1972 p. 12, published by Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

8 One will find a more complete study of this question in the Action Familiale et Scolaire (AFS) brochure, Le modernisme hier et aujourd’hui (Modernism yesterday and today) by François Desjars.

9 [One might also add Fr John McKee’s work, The Enemy Within the Gate – The Catholic Church and Renascent Modernism, published by Lumen Christi Press, Houston, Texas, in May 1974. Ed. Apropos]

10 On this subject see the study on the Ralliement in the AFS brochure Politique et religion and also L’affaire du Ralliement in No. 101 of AFS

11 Abbé Loisy (1857-1940), one of the principal leaders of French Modernism.

12 Louis Jugnet Comment combattre une hérésie (How to fight a heresy) Itinéraires No. 87, p.126.

13 [All quotations from Pascendi are taken from the book My words will not pass away – doctrinal writings St Pius X, Published by Sinag-tala Publishers, Philippines 1974 – Editor, Apropos. The translation of Pascendi used in this book was that originally used by Burns, Oates and Washbourne in the publication, The Doctrines of the Modernists.]

14 See the paragraph ahead entitled St Pius X’s Counter-attack

15 Louis Jugnet, Face au Modernisme, a study published by Ordre français .

16 Rev. Fr Calmel, Préface au catéchisme sur le modernisme du Père Lemius, the text of which was reproduced in Le Sel de la terre, Special edition 12, Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes, 49240 Avrillé, France. This was a special issue consecrated to Fr Calmel. M. de Lassus’ emphasis.

17 [Such also characterises the history of the post-conciliar period – the liturgy being a prime example of Modernism in action – Editor, Apropos]

18 Louis Jugnet (1913-1973), Professor of Philosophy, author of the book Pour connaître la pensée de Saint Thomas d’Aquin published by Nouvelles éditions latines. On this subject see the articles in No. 150 (Aug. 2000) and 172 (Apr. 2004) of AFS.

19 Face au modernisme, p.7. Available from AFS.

20 [Jean Marie Vaissière in Introduction to Politics (An Approaches study document – now out-of-print ) states: ‘What value is to be ascribed to the permanent and universal character of our ideas? As is clear from its very name, Nominalism answers this question by denying their reality and considers them merely as signs or names (hence NOMinalism). That is, a conventional value which allows us to make useful classifications. Hence for this school of thought, intelligence and reason have merely a pragmatic and utilitarian character; that is they “break up” or “atomise” reality into a number of categories and visions which are intellectually convenient but which, by the Nominalist argument, are utterly void of truth…To the Nominalist the evidence of our senses is the most authentic manifestation of reality and our senses are a more trustworthy channel of knowledge than intelligence and reason, since the latter (he argues) inevitably tend to imprison in fixed categories something (viz., reality) which is of its very nature in a continuous state of flux…If we consider the extensions of this mode of thought in the sphere of religious belief, it would follow that Faith would cease to be assent given by the intelligence, illumined by Grace, to a dogmatic and universal teaching received ex auditu but would become that “blind religious sense arising from the obscure depth of the subconscious, morally trained by the impulse of the heart”, which the Church has anathematised in the wording of the anti-Modernist oath.’ Footnote added by Editor, Apropos.]

21 On this subject see the Apropos study document: The Rudiments of Protestantism, Apropos No. 10.

22 [ A friend comments: ‘ “immanentism”, as distinct from the Transcendent, means “the perfection resides—dwells—WITHIN”, and only WITHIN, as “within time” or “within history” or “within the individual consciousness”. In +Maneo (to dwell within) in Latin.’ Editor, Apropos.]

23 Pastoral Letter for Easter 1908; quoted by Romano Amerio, Iota unum, p.39.

24 On the role of conscience in morality, see note 52, p.165.

 25 Let us recall that by supernatural, theology means a type of reality which surpasses the power, the demands, and even the natural design of every creature. The supernatural is by no means synonymous with the spiritual or immaterial. Man finds himself in the supernatural order. There is no other for him. Regarding this see the brochure, Le naturalisme, by Fr Emmanuel (Published by DMM) and the brochure, Catholicisme, foi et problèmes religieux, by Louis Jugnet.

26 Let us remember that Pascendi analyses Modernism while distinguishing: the philosophy, the believer, the theologian, the historian, the critic, the reformer.

27 Regarding Fr de Lubac’s new theology, see p.166. See also in no. 187 of AFS, the dossier: A propos du père de Lubac: la gratuité de l’ordre surnaturel.

 28 Marcel de Corte, Itinéraires No 87. p.25.

29 Cent ans de modernisme, p. 24 ; our emphasis.

30 See the chapter bearing the title of his book, L’intégrisme, histoire d’une histoire.

31 On the Sillon see the brochure by AFS, Le Sillon, St Pius X et la crise du catholicisme francais; see also the chapter Le dilemme de Marc Sangnier in Charles Naurras' book La democratie religieuse (published by Nouvelles editions latinaes).

32 Cardinal Mercier, pastoral letter, 2nd February 1915.

1 comment:

aly said...

Aged parent, it's very good that you have posted this. I will download the pdf but also like that you are posting it this way. It is good for absorbing and reflecting. I am.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...